If the EU will not negotiate….

The Prime Minister has made an offer to the EU to get talks started to allow us to leave with their blessing on October 31. The EU has responded in their time honoured way by rubbishing any feature of the proposal that is better for the UK than the unacceptable Withdrawal Agreement which perished in Parliament and got under 9% support in the last European elections. It is most important now that the UK does not do what it always did under Mrs May and make further concessions. The EU has found it all too easy to refuse to budge and watch as the UK negotiates with itself and against itself.

I voted for Boris Johnson as leader because he promised to take us out by 31 October, and he confirmed the Withdrawal Agreement was dead. He must learn from the bitter experiences of Mr Cameron and Mrs May that the EU does usually overplay its hand and radicalises many UK voters against it by its conduct.

Mr Cameron asked for too little in his attempted renegotiation and was offered even less as a result. That led directly to the referendum defeat, as he did not even secure the return of UK control over benefits when we had often be assured by UK governments that social security remained under our control.

Mrs May always refused to dig in or to cease making concessions. Every tine the EU dug in she gave more ground. The result was a disastrous Withdrawal Treaty which united Leave and Remain in opposition to it.

The present PM needs to tell the EU that his Irish border proposals to get talks going are neither an invitation to assume the text of the rest of the Withdrawal treaty is fine, nor an invitation to get rid of all the best bits of the border fix from the UK point of view in subsequent one sided compromises.. The press when the PM launched the ideas said it was take it or leave it. To change that approach now would be seen as weakness in Brussels.

The best way forward now is to offer a Free Trade Agreement and no Withdrawal Agreement.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

201 Comments

There is no other choice than leave without a withdraw agreement. Martin Howe QC is absolutely right. I read a former diplomat account yesterday and he is also right. The EU has not acted in good faith or accord with Article 50(2). The future relationship should be discussed in tandem.

Mayhab’s servitude plan let the EU decide sequencing of talks placing the U.K. in a straight jacket before any future relationship/trade talks began! Macron did make it clear that the UK would stay in a customs union unless the EU got what it wanted from trade talks. EU parliament bragging how UK would be a trade colony! Was Mayhab and Robbins that dense? Mayhab went off at night to allow the Irish backstop in 2017, what on earth was she thinking unless it was to keep the UK in the EU by another name? Her dishonest Kitkat policy still not investigated. Much more vital to U.K. Interests than any Johnson smear at the moment.

There is no other choice to have a good relationship with the EU than leave without a Withdrawal Agreement that is not required by article 50 of the Treaty.

JR, most people view a speed limit as a target rather than the maximum limit allowed. Depending on road and weather conditions motorists speeds should be lower than the limit.

Similarly the 31/10/2019 was a maximum extension granted by the EU under EU law. The national surrender Act is inferior to this. I see no reason not to leave on a date earlier than the Benn surrender bill requires when it is clear an agreement cannot be reached. Therefore no extension required or needed. Friday 11 or Monday 14th October should be fine. It then leaves a few weeks for more mini agreements to help both sides adjust.

But wait… didn’t you say that the UK held all the cards in the upcoming negotiation ?
You did.

The EU sees the latest British proposal for what it is: something that was cynically designed to be rejected so that the ERG can blame the EU’s so called intransigence when the UK leaves without a deal as it wanted all along.

Only absolute capitulation by the UK will satisfy the EU. The ‘Remainiac’ MPs are embedded agents of the EU and deserve to be treated as such once Brexit is achieved.

As you rightly say, the only acceptable option is a clean break WTO exit, no transition period, no £39 billion payment. Once we are out then the UK will pay what is legally owed, as assessed by an independent arbiter, an nothing more.

The UK has been offered a disastrous deal. It is also the best it is going to get. This is because the UK is by far the weaker party in this negotiation. Time you Brexiters stopped whining, and realised all your stories about us holding all the cards are baloney. Brexit is a catastrophe, and there is only one set of people to blame – those who supported Brexit

We, with a huge trade deficit, do hold a strong hand. But we have never played it! We had a PM who capitulated right at the beginning when she agreed to the EU’s position of ‘no talks on the future until after a Withdrawal Agreement has been concluded’. Right at the beginning she folded. And a Remainer Parliament has made sure we have thrown away our hand.

The best way forward now is to offer a Free Trade Agreement and no Withdrawal Agreement.

100% agree. Democracy must survive, with the UK as a sovereign self governing country. We can dispose of the undemocratic MP’s providing our democracy survives, but the priority is to escape the undemocratic EU.

Wrong.
Laws are developed by the Commission.
As are new directives, regulations and rules.
There is no sitting round tables by the UK chatting about these things.
MEPs in the European Parliament rubber stamp these things into law and member states do the same.

Let’s pretend you’re correct and every single EU law was agreed by the UK. Now explain the contradiction that Remainers claim that UK employment rights will be eroded when we leave the EU. Why should this be the case when in your fantasy every EU law is exactly what the UK government wanted?

OK Andy, if we are a sovereign self-governing Country why can’t we decide who gets work-related benefits that were intended to help raise children in our own Country not give a mother not living with the father of her children a higher than annual national income childcare benefit package? It is not discriminatory if this was the purpose of the benefit the EU said no.

How come we can’t say you have to have lived and worked in the UK for four years in order to obtain social benefits packages?

Why are we having to prioritise social housing for homeless foreigners that are displaced from private rentals after not keeping up the rent and rate payments over UK born residents or those that have lived here for 18 years?

The 1975 referendum leaflet made it clear that the right of veto of the (then 9) members of the Council was what protected UK sovereignty. Thereafter this was eroded as more competences were given to what became the EU (e.g. Maastricht 92/93) without agreement from the UK people (e.g. 92 election all major parties had same Maastricht policy and Major refused referendum).

Between 1975 and 2016 there were NINE general elections which all overwhelming approved the direction in which the UK was going as the main parties all agreed. What part of democracy do you not understand?

Plus, of course, the veto is retained for major decisions like expansion, taxation, defence and so on. This is why there cannot be an EU army and why Turkey will not join.

The UK, sensibly, agreed that the veto was not needed for things like lawnmower regulation or new rules regarding lightbulbs. Harm your sovereignty did they?

Plus of 1975 was 44 years ago. And you had to be at least 18 to vote in the referendum. Which means your comments apply to precisely nobody under the age of 62. More proof that Brexit is a policy for pensioners.

Whoops they are when as happened here Parliament by a huge margin accept and implement the advice

So once again you are wrong , you really have no idea do you

Oh and the pensioners you castigate are the ones who voted for us to join the EC , the ones that invented the technology you are now using to castigate them and the ones that worked and paid taxes so that you and your kids could have “free” education and healthcare

Question : When as you first claimed when you arrived on this blog that you sacked all your staff because of Brexit were your staff all pensioners ?

Shirley, the best way forward has always been to offer an FTA. The red lines on both sides dictate this, and it was ever thus. Yet after more than three years, still the UK government is not recognising this. Sir John is advocating the policy of a party other than that of which he is a member. Very confusing.

A great shame the many anti-democratic traitors have so handicapped the country and the government with the appalling Benn surrender treaty, perhaps costing the county several £ billions should The Government not find some way round it.

So 1 in 5 murders are committed by people on parole. What a wonderful criminal justice system we do have. About the same must be committed by others with mental health issues that are not getting any proper care to protects the public properly. These murders just a price worth paying is the authorities attitude I suppose.

I assume it is also about 1/5 of many other violent and indeed more common crimes like stabbing, assault, burglary, muggings, car crimes, fraud ….

Absolutely right that it is futile to negotiate with and against ourselves – which as you say is what Mrs May did & why she ended up with such an absurdly bad deal.

I think some of the bad aspects of the WA such as the money will have to be accepted. What is crucial is that no agreement constrains the U.K. from pursuing an independent regulatory and trade policy. Otherwise Brexit is pointless – it would be better just to remain. That is the test.

Brexit only has a point if the UK achieves regulatory and trade policy autonomy. If the UK remains in the CU and SM it is indeed pointless. But this was made very clear by both sides during the referendum. It’s only since then that continuity remain types have argued that Brino is brexit.

Richard1- grow some b…s, we do not have to accept any thing from the EU, we just leave now, no deal, wto, and “it wont make jack shit difference” that is Donald Trumps own words , God Bless Donald Trump.

I find that part of our kind hosts sentence both odd and worrying. The we Leave with or without signing the WA is my understanding. We do not need theirs, or anyone’s permission or blessing.

The approach to Leaving the EU was all wrong right from the start. This should have come as no surprise since, those both in government and parliament at the time were all for Remain. They believed they would win and did not plan for the alternative. We then had a PM who some thought could get BRINO through and keep us closely aligned to the EU. This was all given away in the Channel 4 documentary on the talks from the EU side. After Mr.Verhofstadt had visited Number 10 is said in front of the camera; They (UK Government) do not want to Leave.”

It has long been said that, you should never enter into negotiations unless you are prepared to walk away. The EU are not the ones Leaving, we are ! We should have approached these matters with a strong Leave focus. Then and only then would the EU have taken us seriously.

May might have had some of them in cabinet but she never took advice or listened to them.

If during the conduct or the negotiations she had consulted her Brexit secretary or any other cabinet members with a modicum of political nous, they would have told her that the terms being offered under the withdrawal agreement would never get through parliament.

Why did she keep the negotiations secret until that infamous Chequers meeting ?
Because by then, even she must have realised they would not fly.

That doesn’t sound encouraging for Leave voters of which I am one. The inference it seems of this article is that this PM is wavering as many thought he would. This really shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise considering Johnson’s never been a conviction politician. Rhetoric is his weapon and his purpose is the use of this weapon to deflect attention away from his true intentions

I am all in favor of an abominable volte face if it encourages more voters to swap electoral loyalty to the BP who I believe is now the only party with the appropriate intentions to dismantle the Labour-EU edifice that’s been erected since 1997

The Tory party with Patel at the helm would have been a mighty political force for good. They chose Johnson. They’ll regret it.

Yes, agreed, Dominic. Boris seems determined to just press ahead with WA minus backstop, which is not effectively leaving. He always seems to think he can employ clever rhetoric to persuade/fool people, but many people see through that. I think he is hugely disappointing and indicating that he is not to be trusted to truly honour Brexit, but I had not expected anything different.

Two things have become very clear over the past 3 1/2 painful years, the clear revelation of which is quite useful.

The first is that should the UK agree to the backstop we would never be released. Unless Northern Ireland would at some future point be sacrificed (in the way contemplated disgracefully by the EU functionary Mr Selmayer), the whole UK would be held under the trade and regulatory ambit of the EU. To give up NI without a vote of the people would surely be a breach of the GFA. The Irish / EU reaction over recent days shows conclusively that the purpose of the backstop is to trap the UK in the CU and much of the SM and so prevent any future independent UK trade or regulatory policy. It must never be agreed to.

The second – assuming the EU does now turn down Boris’s offer – is that it is not possible to leave the EU amicably. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had a more robust approach been taken from the start. But all that talk from the likes of David Davis about the easiest deal in the world has been shown to be hubristic nonsense. it would have been more sensible and realistic to say the EU would see brexit as an existential threat and would act accordingly.

I think the EU have accepted that the UK is Leaving in someway but, would rather it changed its mind. They also needed to discourage others from doing the same and, with regards to Sweden and the Swedish Democrats in particular, it has worked. As others here have commented, the last thing the EU wants is the UK to do as well as, or better, outside the block.

John, the European Union cannot break its undertakings to the twenty-seven other members under the Lisbon Treaty, nor its commitment to uphold the Good Friday Agreement. It also resolutely supports, quite rightly, each member country, such as Ireland, in its aspirations to the extent that they might be virtuous.

The UK proposals reportedly require it to abandon all of those.

It cannot and will not, and that is highly commendable.

You are standing principle on its head, and I think that you know that.

The UK’s net contribution made up about 18% of all positive contributions to the EU budget. This without factoring disproportionate defence and security contributions.

That the EU must give equivalence to all twenty-seven nations is part of the problem.

A rather modest concession on freedom of movement – at the request of the Prime Minister of an important member nation on the eve of an important vote on continued membership of the EU – may well have averted Brexit.

On this the EU was immovable. And we are darn near to having a second vote too – it is having to be fought against hard.

Good question bob! Mr Redwood talks a lot about tabling a free traede agreement. He’s had over 3 years since the vote and as far as I can see he has not written one paragraph yet. Nor has any other Brexiter. they’re all mouth and no trousers

Reply Tabling it requires scissors and paste from EU/Canada and EU/Japan along clear lines people have put to the UK government.

On your basis JR, that sounds like a job that could get you a “Blue Peter” badge; but, you make no mention of the amount of BBC sticky-backed plastic required. A UK-EU FTA will be of the order of 1,500 to 2,000 pages long, based on recent EU agreement averages. That is a hell of a lot of cutting and pasting JR!

Don’t be so naive- I was going to say stupid- you are not going to get an FTA just like that.

Everything will have to be done in an orderly way- first the terms of the WA will have to be signed off/ ratified in both parliaments either before the 31st Oct or after the’crash’ probably sometime in 2020, but if the 39Billion, the movement of people and the border issues are not settled before 31st Oct then they will be settled after 31st Oct.

Secondly- you are not going to get their blessing to leave- so why say it

Thirdly- There is no time left for negotiations now this side of the 31st Oct- they won’t admit to it, but the EU is counting on the ‘crash’ so that they can get rid of the Farage rabble from their parliament, and neutralise the ERG faction. they consider talks can only resume only in the new year maybe with a new UK government- who knows? hard to know but almost there

What a puzzling post. If there is no deal agreed, the PM is obliged by law (the Benn Act) to ask for an extension. So we cannot leave the EU on 31 October without a deal (unless the EU refuses an extension, which, to help Ireland, it will not refuse). Do you not know this?

A very funny sort of law which only applies to one person, not the rest of us, on just one occasion, not for all time, and carries no penalty. Moreover, this directive was rammed through in half of an afternoon and part of an evening, having been kept secret till the night before. No prior consideration or consultation, no committee, no scrutiny or debate. Ditto in the Upper House which is supposed to do further thorough scrutiny and revision which the Lower House doesn’t have time or expertise for.

This is not law as the British people understand it. It is Zimbabwean.

I agree Rose!
And I suspect that Judges may agree also.
May I draw your attention to paragraph 55 of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court which you can download from their website.

Viz.
55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution.
We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons – and indeed to the House of Lords – for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account.

That’s because the EU came only into existence in 1993.
So 4,514 laws since then, is a lot.
And you miss off the many thousands of directives, regulations, rules and amendments to existing laws created by the EU.

Dear EU,
I have by virtue of the surrender treaty foisted upon us by the Supreme Court been told I have to send you this letter asking for an extension. Could I please have one with a three pinned plug and four sockets.

Indeed – and a Corbyn/SNP/Libdim/Green/Plaid government would be a truly appalling disaster.

His latest mad promise (after the open door to anyone in the World immigration policy with all benefits rights from day 1) is to give football “fans” the power to hire and fire their club’s directors! That should deter any investment in UK football clubs stone dead. If they think the dope will ever get in that is!

I follow a football club whose fans have considerable involvement. That club has done better, relatively speaking, than most ‘conventionally’ run football clubs such as the former Bury FC.

The whole purpose for the opposition parties is not to hold the government to account or, even to stop BREXIT. It is to destroy the Conservative Party electorally. So the UK, its business and people, along with BREXIT are to be sacrificed so that they can get a few more seats. Grubby, gutter politics at its worst !

Andy. ‘We will do as we are told’. Only if we have weak remainers in charge. Surrendering to a big stick is not what leavers are all about. That is why we were a free country at one time and want to be again.

You were never a free country..even today with a first past the post system denies you true democracy. Then right through history you’ve had to contend with crooked monarchy including the establishment and world wars where millions died. Do yo know that in the first world war the King George..the Kaiser and the Czar were all first cousins didn’t see many from that family up in the front line

But Andy, the obvious seems to have been obscured by obsessive discussion of detail.
An FTA would remove the need for any kind of hard border between the UK and the EU, including on the island of Ireland.

Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary (who misguidedly believes the electric cars save significant C02) said of the climate protests that disrupting the lives of ordinary people risked “turning people against” the cause.

Most sensible people were never for the cause get the police to deal with these economic vandals properly this time! As Bill Gates will say (in a speech at the Cambridge Union tonight) let’s deal with malnutrion in Africa and other such very real and easily solvable problems please.

To say that “the West’s charities have managed … to treble the population” is quite a funny statement. Without any participation from the Africans?
More seriously, let’s hope that the US evangelists do not strengthen their presence there first. Some of their sects, also present in the UK are against contraception and abortion, even in case of problems with the unborn.
So OR try to get informed on what “the West’s charities” actually do in these countries before writing such “things”.

Barnier is not there to negotiate..he has his instructions and rule book from the Council..if the UK makes an offer compatible with the rules well and good..if not Batnier will still be there..up until 1st November at least. We are leaving so it s up to us to leave on good terms that’s if we want a relationship with them going forward? Of course there are those who still maintain that we can make it on our own without the great EU but i think this idea is largely delusional.

Well Robert they don’t go around insulting their neighbours- that for a start. they build relationships with like minded for trading purposes and when things go wrong they sit down at the WTO, UN or other body and sort it out in a civilised way and not by chaotic rag press megaphone stuff. That’s how they succeed- but with Boris/Cummings at the helm we have a long way to go yet to get to civilised- am afraid

“The French President told him that the negotiations should continue swiftly with Michel Barnier’s team in coming days, in order to evaluate at the end of the week whether a deal is possible … ”

If the EU rejects the proposals, as it most likely will, that could serve as the trigger for the letter abrogating the EU treaties.

As Andy likes to remind us we are a sovereign state and we could have decided to leave the EU at any time; after the referendum it seemed sensible to start by trying to use Article 50, but we should have made clear that this was not the only way we could leave.

“This letter may be taken as the formal notification required by Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, without prejudice to any general right recognised in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties … “

may be the way to go.

It says “We agreed that if any member state wanted to leave the EU then it should use the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU, so that is what we propose to do”, but adds the implied rider “However if you do not negotiate in good faith, if we are mucked about, we will break off the negotiations and suspend the operation of the EU treaties”.

We need to agree an FTA for the future relationship BEFORE negotiating any Withdrawal Agreement, which is the sequence specified by Art 50.

It would also be helpful to have further comments in the press about how difficult we will be as an EU member if we are held captive beyond 31 October 2019. For example, we could start by proceedings in the EUCJ against member states who have not fully implemented in national legislation all the EU regulations that they should have (i.e. every member state except perhaps Germany). In parallel also start proceedings in the courts of each member state seeking compensation, fines and penalties in every member state where the regulations are not fully enforced (i.e. all of them).

The latter could be achieved very efficiently by taking a full page advert in one major newspaper in each member state inviting law firms to express an interest in acting for the U.K. government from 1 November to carry out such litigation.

Giles, the Uk would be a in a much better posiiton today if it had not sent the Article 50 letter until it had got a satisfactory sequencing. Once the Art 50 letter was sent it was always going to go badly for the UK, because it is much the weaker party to these talks. So why did the Uk send the Art 50 letter so prematurely? Because John Redwood and his ERG chums hounded Mrs May mercilessly to rush the process, shouting about us holding the cards. A massive blunder for which the UK is now paying. Always remember, if you listen to John Redwood you are listening to someone who has called it wrong at every step along the way since 2016

Reply Not so. We advised Mrs May to tell the EU w were leaving in two years time and to ask them if they wanted to discuss an FTA. That would have led to a productive dialogue.

Not sure about you JR, But I am still waiting for some EU apparatchik to pop up and say that they need more ‘clarification’. We have all after 3.5 years had enough of this time wasting. WE TURN OFF THE TAP ON 31/10 and see what happens, and offer mutual tariff free trade. We need to see the EU for what it is and treat it as such.

Another day closer to get out of the EU Empire.
Boris’s negotiation strategy is either brilliant or terrible. I will assume the former. Success will probably be based on the arrogance of the EU negotiators egged on the unbalanced reporting by the BBC and the Remainer sheep. WTO looks like a great springboard on to the FTA

Your first line seems to be unjustified optimism. Everyday that passes the UK is another day away from the referendum vote and another day away from the original March 31st ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ deadline. All evidence points towards UK remaining in EU.

Hi
As a Brit running a global business trading on all continents, I guess my DNA is programmed to find solutions and take the glass half full approach. The UK internal pressures here are huge, and I believe that the more we are told we aren’t capable to sort ourselves out, then we will be more motivated to do so.
Plan B is the Brexit Party driving the alliance with the Conservative party remnants and the many disaffected Labour supporters seeking the delivery of the referendum result.

But how on Earth are we going to leave on 31 Oct? The government has confirmed to a Scottish court that it will send the letter requesting an extension, the law says we must agree to any terms provided the Commons agrees, which they will.

The Eau will agree to an extension subject to some conditions or other. And there isn’t even a guarantee that this will lead to an election. As long as Corbyn is trailing in the polls, why would he agree?

Anthony- send a letter, Please give us an extension for ever, but we cease paying any more money, we will not collect your tax for Brussels, you will not be allowed to fish in our waters. we will not allow any more EU illegals settlement in UK. Eu citizens will not get tax credits, working tax credit, child benefit, housing benefit. We will no longer abide bt EU law. For a start.

The EU are dealing with a man who surrendered to them already, as an MP,
once the WA was put before him for a third time in this Parliament. The
make-up of Parliament has not changed. In fact, the UK is currently a
manifest oligarchy, and Mr. Johnson is not one of the oligarchs. The question
yet remains: by what means will political sovereignty be restored to the people?

‘The best way forward now is to offer a Free Trade Agreement and no Withdrawal Agreement.’

Of course it is and is the only route to fulfilling the result of the referendum. Not only does the EU not negotiate, but it never does so in good faith. Unfortunately there are many in Parliament, and also in Government, who would be more than happy for the UK to leave with the W/A with tweaks to the backstop, then claim we have left the EU.

Well I have been saying it for many months now, leave on or before the 31st October on WTO terms, offer as in your final sentence an FTA and mutual invoking of Art 24 of GATT. Tell the EU that the WA is dead in all respects and that there will be no border in Ireland other than an electronic one covering the movement of goods. No payment of the £39 Billion, but an offer of a treaty under the Vienna convention to agree things of mutual benefit.

Should the EU fail to respond positively they will destroy the southern Irish economy and do irreparable damage to the economy of Europe as a whole. The final need will be to find a way of dealing with the malicious Benn bill, a remainer’s last gasp. Then at the beginning of December call a GE, having come to a working arrangement with the Brexit Party. The object being to clear out all those anti UK elements within our Parliament. We need a Parliament that represents the people.

Well said Sir John. I hope Boris does hold fast and, if the EU refuse to negotiate the current offer, leaves without a deal on the 31st of October 2019.

However, I cannot see how that happens given the clear opposition by many of MPs (the majority of whom promised to respect the referendum), the Speak of the House and many of our national institutions.

Mr Johnson must honour his promises. There are many who doubt him. Does Sir John fear the doubters may be right? Has he got word that Boris is about to weaken and thus these comments? I hope it is written for other reasons.

There must be no concessions. We must leave on 31st October. There must be no extension. If there is any temporary disruption we will know what it is and can address it. At present there remains speculation on all manner of scenarios most of which will never arise. One newspaper is once again spreading fear about the supply of medicines.

The point is though that the PM must be absolutely resolute and we must not have any warm up of May’s Treaty document. It’s hard to imagine that after all his tough talk he will back down. The damage which will be done if he does is hard to contemplate. He and his career ambitions will be finished, the Left and Remainers together will be triumphant and our country and freedoms will be lost.

Why would the EU even bother to consider “negotiating” a deal when it knows that the longer it procrastinates and gives extensions it will get sack-loads of money while its allies in the UK parliament just try to string the Leavers along for as long as they can?
Why, the Remain parliament is so good at doing this that, who knows, they may be able to reverse Brexit altogether!
We should have just left asap and then begun talks, otherwise, as is the case now, we hold no cards whatsoever and there is no incentive for the EU to negotiate and they are quids in.

IMO treaties are made to be torn up.
Look at the troubles they have dragged us into. Treaty of London…rip rip…how many lives saved? Ultimately no Mr H?
How grateful and loyal has the rest of Europe been to us despite all pacts and alliances dating way back?
Oh we’ve had an artificial “ peace” in some parts of Europe for 45 miserable years but OMG how we have paid for that!! No fish..no sovereignty…no country..nuffink.
But what on earth will happen if Boris is playing the Heath/Blair/Cameron/May game??

Boris must not surrender more power to the EU. He said we would leave if a deal was not agreed. We have given enough. Just leave! I want to come back to the Conservative party and thought with Boris at the helm I might just do that but not if he gives any more away. We need a strong leader and one with conviction. Please Boris keep your promise and get us out.

BJ must stick to his utterances and not follow May’s deceit. The surrender Act is beyond democracy and good governance and should be ignored. The UK is in genuine danger of imploding with a rogue parliament, Scotland and Ireland voting to Remain and strong indications England voters would be glad to see the back of them both. The EU under the Lisbon Treaty is required to negotiate an equitable future relationship, it clearly has not and will not.

I see that the Conservatives are now polling higher, with Boris having made up most of the ground lost by May. And that Conservative + TBP vote share exceeds 50%.
Returning to the point, I wonder if Truss has, ready to go, a draft FTA? Government has had three years in which to draft one.

Barnier says “Blame Boris”, well no actually most of the people I know don’t blame Boris they blame Barnier, Verhofstadt and our own backstabbing lying MPs (I know what I was told by my MP to get my vote I’m annoyed with myself that I trusted her) who told us one thing to get elected and then met the opposition to create Acts to tie the PMs hands.

“Lifelong Tories who said that Johnson’s arrival at the top, his nasty rhetoric and his do-or-die vision of leaving the EU meant they would not vote Conservative for the foreseeable future.” Harris in the Guardian. I’m beginning to wonder if people are telling these reporters stuff like this to get the opposition complacent about calling an election. By the way, not watching the news is going quite well for me, no more light up EU flags and flaxons, no more opinion rather than news, no more aggravating one-sided interviews, try it, it’s nice.

Boris said May’s deal is dead and then resurrected it albeit a slightly better version. I would still prefer it if we leave with the so called ‘no deal’ option and I hope that is what the Government are secretly aiming for but the most important thing now is that we leave on 31st October, 2019 and then have a GE to allow us to get rid of all the democracy denying EU loving MPs in Parliament. I really hope Boris has something up his sleeve with some loophole and really means it when he says we are leaving on that date, no ifs, no buts. Can’t wait to see the reactions of the likes of Soubry and Grieve if that happens.

The government should take the EU to an international court for not complying with its Lisbon Treaty Article 50, paragraph 2 which states :

…..“In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union….”

Perhaps if the EU still refuses to negotiate and “conclude” an agreement then this will be our next move if the UK’s EU supporters surrender act is implemented and we fail to leave again on 31/10 ?

Sorry, but if our Parliament refuses to sign it off 3 times then an agreement hasn’t been “concluded”.

I do not believe the EU would like to be exposed in an international court as an authoritarian, undemocratic empire by an examination of the very unfair, often asymmetric, terms of their proposed WA surrender treaty – the one where we accept EU laws, budgets, taxes, fines and policies (trade, energy, environment, foreign, immigration etc) but without representation or veto and with no lawful means of exit – the one described by Mr. Verhofstadt’s staff as reducing the UK to EU colony status.

But an agreement has been negotiated and concluded, man. It is the UK that is now refusing to abide by it. The EU could sue the UK, except it has a lot more impirtant things to worry about than a country sawing its own legs off

Dear Sir John.
The tariff schedule published in the Guardian shows Denmark being exempt from tariffs on the export of pork.Is this discriminatory?Or does it reflect the importance of the pig industry in Denmark?

“The best way forward now is to offer a Free Trade Agreement and no Withdrawal Agreement.”

The UK left the EU on the 29th March, but the Establishment are in denial about it. Robin Tilbrook tried to raise the issue in court but court brushed the case aside without a hearing.

There has been a conspiracy of silence in the MSM about the disgraceful partisan way the case was rejected by the high court while Gina Miller’s cases are fast tracked through the system and make headline news every time. This is a scandal.

The UN want all nations trade under WTO rules by 2030 according to agenda 21/2030 para 68. Britain should prompt this and start now.

68. International trade is an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction, and contributes to the promotion of sustainable development. We will continue to promote a universal, rules-based, open, transparent, predictable, inclusive, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as meaningful trade liberalization. We call on all WTO members to redouble their efforts to promptly conclude the negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. We attach great importance to providing trade-related capacity-building for developing countries, including African countries, least-developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing states and middle-income countries, including for the promotion of regional economic integration and interconnectivity.

“The best way forward now is to offer a Free Trade Agreement and no Withdrawal Agreement.”
I agree with JR.

If there is no agreement in 10 days, the PM ought to defy the HoC and not ask for an extension – declare it is a political decision in accordance with the people’s decision beyond the authority of the courts and is non-justiciable, and should any MP contest it they may do so by voting for a GE and let the highest authority, the people, decide.

Very interestingly, Denis Staunton, latterly the Brussels correspondent of the Irish Times and now their London editor, in an interview to George Parker of the FT (BBC “Week in Westminster” 05/10), when asked how the Irish government felt about a no-deal Brexit,which Mr. Parker said would have “catastrophic effect for the Irish economy”, replied:

“ The Irish government and the entire political system have considered that [no-deal exit] already even before we got to this stage and they’ve considered that it’s better to go into a no-deal Brexit and risk what they would regard as a temporary situation or catastrophe [for Ireland], as you put it, rather than accepting an international treaty which creates a hard border on the island [of Ireland] and possibly damages the Irish economy.”

Sir John Redwood, I hope we can rely on your support to put Nigel Farage on the EU commission and support the EU budget with a hefty £0 contribution from the UK if they do somehow keep us in the EU post 31st October.

I would support yourself for the role, although you currently have a useful job.

Zero chance of Farage becoming a Commissioner. He would need the approval of the European Parliament – the democratically elected voice of the peoples of Europe. And they will certainly reject a man with his track record of absenteeism as an MEP. No, the EU’s democractic process is robust enough to block Farage (just as the UK’s has kept him out of Westminster)

We do not want a hybrid BRINO agreement. The backstop solution is not the only thing to solve. There was a lot of total capitulation in May’s so called withdrawal agreement and all of that needs to be addressed before agreeing anything. Personally, I think it would be better to leave with no deal . In the 2016 referendum, there was nothing about deals. I was a straight question: do you want to stay or leave the EU?

The reciprocal healthcare is just one failure after another of the British Government – if we could, all of these years, bill back the EU countries for the free healthcare, GP £150 annual premium, NHS dentistry, as the EU Countries bill the UK why didn’t we? This should more than pay to cover for any retiree in Spain’s private medical cover. Our hospitals and doctors want more and more money from the same people whilst too many are getting services for free.

One more point that needs to be dealt with, aside from the disastrous WA, is the proposed integration of our armed forces with those of the EU and the placement of them under EU control. This has never, to my knowledge, been admitted by our government or the EU although I understand objections have recently been raised by senior MoD staff.

This is simply not in accordance with the exit that we voted for and must be stopped.

You are wrong Leona.
Clauses 104 to 106 and the general details of the Political Declaration in the Withdrawal Agreement talk about the development of an EU armed force under the EU’s control, developing the existing defence co operation agreements.
Using member states personnel.

Good luck, Britain. Watching from the U.S., I have no doubt you’ll be economically much better off outside the EU straitjacket than you are trapped inside it. That isn’t the best part of Brexit, though. Your departure shows that you have decided not to commit national suicide, which was exactly what would have happened had you stayed.

“… the proposals we are putting forward do not involve physical infrastructure at or near the border or indeed at any other place.”

There has been some justified puzzlement among MPs about how this could possibly work, with star Remoaner Hilary Benn sticking his oar in to say that something doesn’t add up – which of course it doesn’t, as anticipated here on October 4:

“But if Northern Ireland leaves the EU customs union that will mean customs checks on the island of Ireland, and according to the latest Remoaner lie the UK government has pledged that there will be no customs checks anywhere on the island of Ireland … ”

It would have been far better if Boris Johnson had quickly issued a short statement that he should not have added those words “or indeed at any other place”.

Meanwhile, a Labour MP went as far as falsifying a quotation from the Joint Report to support a brazen lie previously highlighted here on October 2:

If the EU are blocking any form of deal, and the surrender act takes no-deal off the table unless we get a deal then the surrender act is surely invalidated as the opportunity to get that deal never existed and that is what parliament voted for. The 2 combined are attempting to revoke A50 without actually doing so. It is blatant crimnal activity.

Anyway, surely the law which should be observed by HMG is the one which says we leave with or without an agreement, not the surrender directive which is illegitimate because of the way it was conceived and “passed”, quite apart from what it says.

Indeed that is the voter’s role.
Every few years we have a general election.
You can choose to vote for whoever you like.
PS
Conservatives currently 15 points ahead of Labour and Boris is way ahead of Jeremy in poll ratingsas a preferred PM

MH…. I agree that should Boris not get us out of the EU this year, preferably on 31st October, then the electorate is likely to put their crosses in boxes that result in the Conservative party failing to ‘govern’ in any meaningful way in the next Parliament. That would suit you. However studying the other parties, and their confused policies and ‘follow the crowd ‘leaders”, during the last 3 years, I fear for the future. The doom the remoaners go on and on about is much more likely for the UK staying under the yoke of EU, rather than escaping it. PM with an iron fist, or a paper tiger? Which is to be?

It’s strange that you’ve decided to complain on this site, again, about not being able to vote against the government of Boris Johnson, when Boris has twice offered the opposition a general election and challenged them to call a vote of no confidence but they have refused. Is there a left-wing equivalent of this site so you could direct your frustration at the proper target?

Boris Johnson is Prime Minister because he was elected to Parliament by his constituents and then elected as Conservative Party Leader by members of the Conservative party .
This position is legal & above board and in line with historical precedent , I am sure that the Supreme Court would return a unanimous verdict in his favour , on this matter .
Complaints here and elsewhere , that “I did not vote for him to be Prime Minister ” or sentiments to that end , reveal you to be only democratic when it suits you and suggests you are well suited to be a member of the European Union .

Does this actually mean that Ms Howard would have voted Tory? Why else should she expect to be able to select their leader?
Furthermore this methodology is exactly the same in Brussels when only the MEPs can elect their President. The people never get a say in ANY of the elections for the Kings of Brussels.
In a democracy, it is the people who select those that would govern them AND also have the opportunity to remove them.
However we all know the EU does not work like that.

The EU will refuse to comply with Article 50 (2) and negotiate until it accepts that there is absolutely no chance that the UK will revoke. Until then the plan is to make any Withdrawal Treaty totally unacceptable through the use of the backstop. For example :

Back in November 2018 President Macron explained the Withdrawal Treaty to his fishermen:

“The UK will be trapped in a customs union after Brexit unless Downing Street offers European fishermen full access to British waters during the coming trade negotiations.”

“The EU’s demands on fisheries needed swift resolution after 29 March 2019 or the talks on a wider trade deal would fail leaving the UK in the “backstop” customs union envisioned in the withdrawal agreement.”

“We as 27 have a clear position on fair competition, on fish, on the subject of the EU’s regulatory autonomy, and that forms part of our lines for the future relationship talks…It [the backstop] is a lever…”

There are numerous press reports that Boris is about to repeat the negotiating naivety of all recent British governments, I.e. to respond to EU intransigence with more goodwill gestures that will simply be pocketed. Reports suggest he will roll over and remove the need for Stormont approval for NI single market membership and make further concessions on customs arrangements that would lead to a hard border between NI and GB. Unless and until we have a British government that knows how to say No the EU will never stop behaving i this way. They think you are all idiots in Westminster and the evidence of 30 years supports them in that view.

PPS It IS illegal to place wheelie bins on roads and pavements and for Local Authorities or Government to request or instruct persons to place them there. Let alone instruct and endanger wheelie bin collectors to take part in an illegal activity and endanger themselves, pedestrians and other vehicle users. When are the trials? Shh, you are not allowed by Law to discuss it!!Shhh!

Now that a large German motor company is establishing a big car plant in Turkey, is there going to be a border check on imported Turkish made German cars, and is there going to be tariffs imposed by the EU on these German designed cars?

Also, the Grand Canaria Las Palmas I believe is a free port.
Could we assign Anglesey as an island and set up Holyhead as a free port?

John don’t you think its time to stop ar*ing around now. Enough time has been wasted and we’re regularly reminded on here by Andy, Margaret and Newmania that our sovereign government has more powers than previously exercised.

What is in Boris Johnson’s power right now, remove David Cameron’s choice and let’s get a proper leaver EU commissioner in place, I’d choose someone like Daniel Hannan or Anne Widdicombe. Give the public a telephone vote on it from a selection of three. Tell us what their powers are and ensure they act upon them.

Make child tax credits and working tax credits available only for all people that have lived here for sixteen years.

I’ve been told we don’t have to give housing to out of work foreigners we could return them to the EU why haven’t we been.

Give hospitals permission to retain the recharged money they bill back to the EU and rest of the World reciprocal Countries, net off their bills to us and give our NHS a boost.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.